Pope Martin V is pretty clear. I only quoted a small portion of his condemnation below....

This most holy synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below... are not catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved.... this most holy synod therefore reproves and condemns the aforesaid books and his teaching...
...On account of the above, moreover, *all* his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ’s faithful...This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this  sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy...

20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - CONDEMNED

So the main belief of the SV's has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pretty sure that the SV's aren't going to care, unfortunately. They are above Church teaching, of course. They seem to believe that it does not apply to them. But then Martin Luther thought the same, as did Calvin.

So the main belief of the SV's has been condemned by the Catholic Church. Pretty sure that the SV's aren't going to care, unfortunately. They are above Church teaching.

See above.  I swear, the level of thinking / IQ among some R&R is very difficult to suffer.

See above.  I swear, the level of thinking / IQ among some R&R is very difficult to suffer.

At least we aren't liars. That has to count for something. 

I don't think that you believe the simple fact that the Church cannot formally teach error. You seem to be under the misconception that if Francis is not a true Pope, then the Church has defected. However, the exact opposite is true: The Church has defected, and proved itself to be a fraud, not if Francis isn’t the Pope, but if he is.

Only a true Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost:

“The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.” (Pope Pius XII, Address Ancora Una Volta, Feb. 20, 1949)

And so the reason why Bergoglio can publicly commit all of these formal heresies with impunity and without any interference from the Holy Spirit is quite simply the fact that he is not the Pope.

Archbishop Lefebvre (ignored by modern R&R):

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

So a pope can formally teach error after error after error after error in faith and morals year after year after year after year (as Bergoglio has done and continues to do) and he's still the Vicar of Christ....okay

Yeah, the R&R attempt to make an analogy between this crisis here and an isolated error in some Encyclical or Allocution.  There's absolutely no comparison.  We have over 60 years of "Magisterium" that's thoroughly polluted with error, particularly religious indifferentism and denial of EENS, the promulgation of a non-Catholic Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass ... and they try to claim that it's in the same category as a mistake a Pope might make in some Encyclical or Allocution.  These V2 papal claimants have basically established a new religion that's not recognizable as Catholic, and as +Lefebvre pointed out, lacks the Marks of the Catholic Church.  They hide behind the technicalities of the limits to papal infallibility "in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton referred to it) in order to pretend that the Magisterium and Mass from a legitimate pope can be so corrupt as to not only justify but even require refusal of communion with and submission to the Vicar of Christ.

Let's say there was no NOM and we were talking about an isolated passage or two in Vatican II that was wrong.  There's no way there would have been a Traditional movement that separated from the hierarchy.  We'd have some Catholics who respectfully disagreed and questioned the teaching through the appropriate channels ... all from WITHIN the Church.  There would have been no need to split off from the Church.  Let's say I was a priest during the time of Pius XII and disagreed with what he said about evolution or NFP (both of which I do disagree with), would I go off and start my own chapel as a result of this disagreement?  Hardly.  But the scope of the V2 revolution and transformation of the Church has been so radical that we don't recognize it as the Catholic Church.  If St. Pius X had been time-warped to today, would he recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church?  No way.  He'd think it was some Protestant sect.  There's no comparison between the V2 revolution and some error / mistake in a non-infallible teaching of a Pope.

R&R try to pretend that this is simply a difference of degree in terms of fallible statements, but the Conciliar Church represents a difference of kind, not merely a difference of degree.  If you can have one mistaken non-infallible teaching, why not 10, why not 100, why not 1000?  Well, the cuмulative effect of all that error and the New Mass and the bastardization of canonizations ... together they have the cuмulative effect of setting up a new religion and effect a substantial change in the institution known as the Conciliar Church.

You can change a certain number of accidents, but at some point, the cuмulative effect is that the entity no longer has the same essence.  This reminds of a story with my Mother-In-Law.  At one point she brought out a cake that she called "Lemon Chiffon" cake.  And yet it was orange with brown frosting.  When questioned she said, "Well, I had a recipe for Lemon Chiffon cake.  But I didn't have the lemon batter, so I used this orange cake mix I had.  And I didn't have the lemon butter icing, so I used this brown icing that I had."  At this point, it's obviously not "lemon chiffon" cake anymore, but she still called it that.  This is precisely what R&R do, say that the transformation is merely accidental, whereas if you change enough of the "accidents", the thing cease substantially to be what it was.

I don't think that you believe the simple fact that the Church cannot formally teach error.

1.  Neither V2 nor the new mass are a formal teaching, because neither is binding, nor obligatory, nor will anyone go to hell for ignoring them.
2.  There are just as many flavors of R&R as there are of sedeism.  This is not an either-or situation.
3.  Chastising "all of R&R" for not buying into your interpretation of the crisis is why many R&R don't like sedes. 

1.  Neither V2 nor the new mass are a formal teaching

Please don't tell me you believe in that "Vatican II was a pastoral council" nonsense that is spewed by the SSPX and other R&R conmen. 2 of the 16 V2 docuмents are "Dogmatic Constitutions" (Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium).

You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.

How?